AOC cruises to primary win, looks set to waltz to reelection

Post Reply New Topic

Societal change takes time and is hard. Expecting a sudden understanding of the differences between 2 words that until recently have been seen as interchangable makes it harder. Unfortunately, the burden of change is on those seeking the change being able to articulate the need for change, as well as to reason with those who may not agree. There is no set timeframe for this, it will certainly take longer than you want, but the time taken will be a reflection of the ability of those seeking change to put forward their case to those who may not agree (or are undecided). It's no good thinking "this is taking too long", or that people should automatically see why the change sought is worthy.



This is an indication that maybe the need for the change still hasn't been articulated within the community as much as you think it has, and that there is still a lot of work required. You can't expect a society to suddenly make a large change in it's understandings for something which only affects a minority of the population.

Trying to force it through, though, will ony make it take longer....The change you want will happen in its own time, and although you may not like to hear it, you need to be patient and just slowly chip away at the resistance to the change you desire, convincing people through reason and example, not bullying them with accusations regarding them or their beliefs (The difference between "Have you considered that maybe this group find that offensive\degrading\? because..." rather than "That is transphobic [because...]") taking a conciliatory approach rather than being defensive.

Or, to put it into simple terms: to get widespread support, you need 50% of the overall population (ideally more) behind you. The lower the % of the overall population there is within the group wanting change, the higher the % of the remaining population they need to get onto their side. Each person who you offend in the process (either intentionally or unwittingly) is one less person who will support you, and means you need to convince enother 2 people to support you to counteract this (one to balance the "opposition" caused, and another to replace their position on the "support" side. This means that the safest way to get change through is gradually tapping away, not taking a sledgehammer in the expectation that you can force the change to happen. Offend too many people in your campaign, and you will hit a point where 50% or more of the total population are against you, and you may end up with an opposite reaction to that which you desired.

Who gets to decide what is just slowly chipping away at resistance? A lot of people will regardless see anything as abrasive.

And why do people get to decide that words like sexist and homophobic are bad, but saying that it offends someone is fine, especially when those people will then say they don't care what offends someone?

That would be the people\society who you need to convince and whose support you need to implement a change, and will depend on the approach taken to bring in the change, along with the number of people you need to convince.



It comes down to the contect in which words are used - Once a word becomes associated with "judgemental" attitudes, use of it against someone\something becomes linked with that context.

Similarly, offensiveness comes down to both an individual's understanding of something, and society's understanding of it. Some words may offend an individual, while society is fine with the word, while others may be deemed offensive across society, yet certain people are not offended.

Using a word that is considered judgemental (for example "sexist") without providing context or suggested alternatives is then seen as an attack on that person rather than an attempt to change their behaviour, and would naturally leave the target feeling offended for being judged without any explanation of why they were judged, nor what they could have said or done instead.

The reason some people hit the point where they "say they don't care what offends someone" often comes as a result of being on the receiving end of judgemental statements (either in the past or present), and those doing the judging have not had, nor would they show the courtesy to explain what was done wrongly, nor offer alternatives, at which point this person then decides that those person's opinions are not worth worrying about, treating them as they have been treated, and can continue for anyone else seeking to force a change on them in the future.

I have already said that I don't use the words in a judgemental way. I have already said multiple times that an opinion being sexist does not make a person sexist.

Isn't the accusation that the words are judgemental in themselves judgemental to me? Such that people who attach the word "abrasive", especially against a woman which it already has a bit of a history of being used against women as part of gender bias, is itself judgemental? And thus is not conducive to proper discussion?

Yes, I agree you have said all that...The problem being that you made those claims without offering alternatives, stating that it wouldn't matter what was said, as the "bias" would still be there, in effect passing judgement.

Had you instead opened with "Would you consider that A, B, or C may be better alternatives, as 'D' has the potential to appear biased against the target due to their gender", there would have been no problem, as you would have been helping educate\inform, rather than attacking the poster (and readers of the post).

Think how you would feel if someone passed judgement on what you said, refused to explain how you could avoid doing so in future through alternative words you could use\actions you could take, then denied having passed any form of judgement on yourself?

I think public opinion is more supportive of trans rights than this discussion would indicate: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... g-2019.pdf

And as I already said, gender bias is about a feeling, not a word. Telling people that the word is wrong and what should be used instead is just telling them how to mask what their feelings are instead of actually discussing it. What I wanted was that maybe they could explain exactly what it is that they find about AOC that makes them think abrasive, and how it would be the same as with a man, or perhaps is different. But it has just been asking me what they should use instead and saying that she and Gillard are different from someone like Abbott, a man with plenty of controversy attached.

What should I say? Tell people to not say abrasive and instead say "some people might find her attitude too aggressive"? With the then response I might question if they have that problem because she is a woman, because it is a proven fact that people find women harder to take seriously in politics, and don't like them if they take on more masculine traits that can come across as more aggressive.

It is a true cultural thing where people still think that men make better leaders than women, it is a dumb belief that comes from ancient biblical beliefs like Eve being the follower and property of Adam. So many men automatically default to getting angry if a women tells them what to do, but are fine if a man does it.

People seriously think that Donald Trump is the best ever, a man who praised Kim Jon Un for the fact that when he gets up everyone else gets up too, but somehow they also see AOC as the literal devil who wants to be a dictator to tell people what to do.

This is becoming somewhat repetetive, but I'll give it one last shot...


As can be plainly seen, I have talked about what I (subjective) saw in the media regarding her, indicating the issue was with her presentation method.

You took offence (for want of a better word) to the conotations which YOU apply to a word used, implying it was used for a sexist reason, with no evidence other than YOUR feelings and what you WANT me to have meant.

On providing some words that I had considered, but were too "harsh", you replied:


At that point, having tried to explain what I was saying, it had become apparent that the issue was not the words\meaning I wished to convey, but YOUR interpretation of them and the insinuations you were making regarding the intention behind the words selected. The fact that you implied that my opinion of ONE female politician and their method of presentation reflects a bias towards females in general, solely on what you wished my words to mean, comes across as exceedingly judgemental and offensive. The fact that you are unable to see the problem here just exacerbates the problem.

I have been advised by several people that trying to explain this to you would be a waste of time, but thought that maybe you might come to understand the problem. Based on your reponse, I can see that it is unlikely that you will ever understand the issue, so I shall exit this conversation before I type something which I may regret.

Sadly, this experience is likely to colour my opinion of your cause, simply through the association of it with this discussion, but that is your problem, not mine.

Saying that she needs to work on her people skills is simply just saying you find her abrasive, it does not expand on what exactly you find abrasive other than you just do.

And you took offense on the connotations that YOU put on the words "gender bias", implying that it was for judgemental reasons, giving me no evidence other than that you think it means that I am calling you sexist. I am not.




I actually understand you really clearly, I have probably come across a little inarticulate in response but I understand how people can feel prosecuted from words being used like being called sexist, when there is no recourse to argue. But you have made no effort at all to understand my point of view when I talk about things like gender bias. I am saying right now that I have gender bias, I have a lot of gender biases, I as a human have flaws, I am not saying that I or anyone else is sexist, how many times do I have to repeat this before you stop reading what you think that I mean, stop trying to think that I am calling you something that I am not.

All you have done has just lecture me back in exactly how I should use my speech. And I can say the same that my experience in this conversation with you has coloured my opinion of the causes of people that have the immediate complaint of calling female politicians as abrasive, since their response is just going to be to get defensive and fight over whether language is judgemental rather than actually look at if we have subconscious or not biases.

Again, I watch huge essays that self analyse our own biases we may have on a given subject, it is some of my favourite topics to self analyse how we and others may think. But I guess that is the difference between our sides, one fights desperately against ideas that we have any biases at all, the other already knows we all hold biases and willing to critique ourselves to see how we may improve.

I am going to admit that I think that Brictoria is right that I have come across more accusatory judgemental than is needed. I was under some stress, but after working some feelings out I am going to try some of the recommendations.

I will make sure my words do not come across as judgemental of people posters, and I will discuss subjects in ways that more clearly explain my issues and what can be done for us to improve.

I am sorry if how I have posted has upset anyone.

No, don't alter the words you use, because that just means that what you really mean is the words you're not using and you're just being dishonest by saying the words you say instead of the things you're not saying. Being a mind-reader is fun!

The issue isn't that you've "come across more accusatory judgemental than is needed", it's that your position is inherently accusatory and judgemental.

I don't appreciate the sarcasm after I have said that I will do better, no one is a mind reader.

Nor do agree I agree with assessment that my position is inherently accusatory and judgemental. Please rather than be judgemental about my positions point out what the problem is and tell me what I could do better.

Maybe we can start here?



I'm not sure how this COULDN'T be seen as judgemental:
Assigning your own "meanings" to words
Stating use of a different word wouldn't matter as the "bias" which YOU see there would still be there

Thereby implying (and judging) what someone else had posted based on YOUR subjective beliefs.

Looking over this entire thread, I am wondering if you, at any point, realized how hard it was for other people,who were trying to get through to you an indication of the difficulty in proving a negative (there was NO bias in the statement), when the only responce throughout has been "the bias is there, but even if it wasn't, I'm not going to show you how to prove that it isn't there or what could be done in future to avoid this appearance of bias, because the bias is there".

I don't hold any judgement over anyone who might use the word abrasive. Where did I say people have a gender bias for using the word? It just seems other people assigned their own meanings to my words.

But I suppose I should have said:
I think that a lot of people dislike AOC because she is a woman who fights for social causes, which a lot of people see as abrasive. I don't think everyone who says she comes across as abrasive does so out of a gender bias, but a lot of male politicians do not suffer from the same opinion. For instances people call Trumps tough act as actually being strong. Could people who have a problem with her presentation care to say what it is about her presentation that they have a problem.

I for one think that what others call abrasive from AOC is actually strength, where she has does not let things like her relative age and the fact that women politicians are rarer because women tend to get taken less serious make her back down from important issues. That much of the democratic party seem happy to mostly virtue signal that they stand for issues, but be too quick to make compromises and not help with the issues that many people care about. I also think that her being part of what people call "the squad" is a good sign for change of letting younger women get a say in important issues while it has been too long that old men have gotten a final say on important issues including things like the body autonomy of women.

Well, too bad. Expressing a minor bit of contrition does not provide a tabula rasa after presuming to engage in thought and language policing. And that is exactly what it is. "Subconscious bias testing" might as well be Thetan Scans for how scientifically valid the concept is, and presuming to read other peoples words as though they are actually coded messages filled with secret malice is pretty freaking Orwellian. Your entire approach means that people have the options of agreeing with you, staying silent or be judged as racists and/or sexists.


And of course you don't agree. Your religion doesn't allow you to agree with that. I can't remember who said it and I'm paraphrasing, but the gist was this: America will be ready for a female president when a woman can lose to a man and it not be blamed on sexism. Now, this was said about the presidency, but the general idea is easily extrapolated for greater generality. Seeing -ists and -ism whenever women and/or minorities are criticized suggests you think them less capable (as a group), not that whoever is criticizing the individual does.

I think that it is actually you reading into my words like they are some sort of coded messages that have some sort of Orwellian thought policing. I would ask that you refrain from attaching such things to me as a means to control my speech or silence me, that I have to agree with you or I can't have an opinion.




But, if things are equal, wouldn't there already be equal representation? Why are there more white male politicians than women and minorities?

And I am a part of no organised religion. What could you possibly mean in saying I part of a religion?